One form of behavior, however, drew overwhelming condemnation. Among Democrats, an astonishing 82 percent found “hunting animals for sport” to be morally wrong.

If this reflects a tender concern for all living things, isn’t it worth asking if a baby in the womb is a living thing? Even if someone doesn’t consider the baby to be fully human before delivery, surely that unborn child deserves as much respect as, say, a deer.

Yet Democrats find abortion more acceptable than hunting, by a margin of three to one—showing obtuse inconsistency at best, utter derangement at worst.

More to Consider

Comments (15)

The ironic part of the abortion issue is that women KNOW what they carry and what they destroy. Men too, I think, on some level KNOW. All the emotional arguments are like salves to a wound that will always be there. When abortion became legal, it killed a fundamental part of the soul. A part that knows right from wrong, decency from depravity.

And every time a pro-abortionist is forced to face a contradiction to their excuses, that wound opens and bleeds. Someone kills a pregnant woman and law enforcement wants to charge the suspect with TWO murders. A child killed an hour before birth is ok, but an hour later is murder. An imperfect child can be destroyed while in the mother's womb, but not an autistic child after days and nights of parental sleeplessness. Children aren't punished for the sins of their father, except if that sin is rape, then the child must die.

On and on it goes, the inconsistencies, the lies. But somewhere deep inside, we all know what abortion is. And some continue to push the salve, the feel better excuses. And watch as the soul of society slowly rots.

The conservative argument appeals to me more than the leftist one. Perhaps the attack on hunting is not against hunting per se but rather against private gun ownership. The left wants the powerful state to have a monopoly on the use of force. There is one aspect that troubles me, which is the use of abortion to ensure that families have a male heir, as is common in China and in many countries in Asia. This seems to be especially reprehensible. And of course even if a female child is born, it may be neglected so much that it has less chance of survival. This is a terrible waste of human potential for the sake of family preference. And so many talented women never are born and cannot unfold their potential as people and as women. And of course it distorts the demographics so that there are not enough wives to go around. Should polyandry be introduced as a solution? Or should there be more use of military force to lower the number of males in the population? Or serial marriage? Or should societies encourage homosexuality? I am also troubled by a practice common to many armies in wars of intentionally trying to impregnate as many women in the enemy population as possible to humiliate the enemy by forcing its families to raise the children of enemy soldiers. I believe that abortion was legalized and liberalized by some countries after World War II because of this practice. Should this sort of abortion be practiced or not. Perhaps it would have a deterrent effect, in that the other side would not expect to gain by the practice of mass rape. Or what? Well, I have no solutions. Or what about abortion as mercy killing, in cases where the child would suffer enormous deformities or pain or handicaps in life. Could that be condoned under circumstances? Or abortion to save the mother's life. In the film the Cardinal, the young priest chooses the life of his sister's baby and allows her to die. Later we see that the child grew up to be a wonderful young woman, so the priest seems to have made a justifiable refusal to permit and condone abortion. But it seems that Catholic hospitals have about the same rates of maternal death in childbirth as other hospitals, so that most Catholics probably do choose the mother over the unborn child. And it makes sense, because the mother can live on to have other children and will be able to raise new previous children responsibly as well. So again one can find several moral dilemmas connected with abortion. I am not taking sides with abortion or against it, but simply asking questions, or perhaps better: rehearsing questions already asked a million times by others.

1- Allowing abortion on an imperfect child (deformities) for "their sake" puts an unfair burden on those who later become imperfect. Is it merciful to allow a parent to put down (like a dog) a child who has had an accident and is now blind, mentally handicapped, lost a limb? How about a war veteran who is deemed not quite whole? Or grandma whose can't seem to remember who she is or where she is going? Is it mercy to end their lives? Are we saying their lives are not worth living?

2- Rape is the sin of the father, so is the population of enemy bread children for humiliation sake. Does the child's death wipe out the crime? Is that the payment that must be extracted to make humanity feel better?

3- Another child. Sigh. As a mother of 3 born children and 1 miscarried, I can tell you that EACH child holds a piece of their mother's heart. EACH CHILD. Going on to bear "another child" doesn't stop the ache or the emptiness for the child lost. Please do not ever tell a mother who has lost a child that she can go on to have another one. That is heartless and cruel. Yes, even in abortion for she KNOWS what she destroyed.

4- Saving the life of a mother…imagine if there was a fire and time only for one to be saved and the mother chooses herself instead of her child. You may think you are being kind to the woman you can see and talk to, but the choice, if she chooses herself will haunt her forever.

Lastly, no matter what reason one can come up with, the only real question is, are we talking about a human being with value? If not, then there is no need for excuses; one doesn't try to justify the cutting off of one's hair or finger nail or removal of tissue. If yes, then NO excuse will do.

Nani,- a very thoughtful and sincere response, thank you for that. My only comment might be relative to "Rape being the fathers sin".. Rape is non gender specific. You have only to look at the number of women teachers being convicted for raping male minors. And contrary to Fox Media, it shouldn't be considered a "sexual romp"!

Nani Tavares • Mar 29, 2018 at 3:00 pm

Gregg- I suppose a woman could become pregnant from raping a man; however the sin or crime would be the woman's and she couldn't very well demand the death of the child without victimhood, could she?

Norm Helgeson • Mar 23, 2018 at 7:50 pm

Nani said it all. Our fundamental differences (our political wars) in this country – at bottom – are over abortion. For example, if everyone in this country agreed to allow abortion, that would not solve our political wars as abortion would continue to eat away at the fabric of the goodness (and conscience) of this country. But – everyone agreeing to disallow abortion, I believe, would eliminate 75 % of our political differences and the remaining 25 % could then be rationally addressed. Like the civil war, our country will remain divided until we come to terms with and destroy this monstrous evil amongst us.

For whatever reason abortion is not just something Dems and liberals want to keep legal and "safe" (unless a state like TX passes a law that the clinics need to meet the same medical safety measures and hospital admitting privileges as other health care providers, in which case they are immediately sued) but not "rare" as they claim. The disturbing part, rather, is that they actually promote and endorse it (it seems to be their holy sacrament), particularly Planned Parenthood with their grossly disproportionate numbers of minority babies terminated (I thought the Left were the protectors and defenders of the minority and poor….). Pro Choice is one thing, pro abortion quite another, no matter what you think of it's legality.

At this point, I can add nothing of value. You have all summed-up, quite thoroughly, what is at the heart of this matter.
One party values life, while the other values the freedom to kill innocence and to destroy fundamental decency.

I was not aware that inter-racial marriage – was a moral issue. Is Mr. Medved saying it is immoral? The Old Testament certainly says it is. But what does Mr. Medved say about it today?

Regarding the survey: "hunting animals for sport". I'm not sure what that means. If I eat the deer and grouse that I hunt, am I hunting them "for sport"? Yes or No? If I'm protecting my crops or herd – is that killing "for sport"? Almost no one shoots animals merely "for sport" – and lets them rot in the field. Those 2 words "for sport" – radically affect the survey. As a hunter, I would oppose anyone shooting animals merely "for sport". I find the imprecise language of the survey to invalidate the conclusions reached.